Broken Levees

Earlier I posted about not building your house in a flood plain. You know, those areas that are most likely to flood. ESPECIALLY when climate change increases the amount of rain in various areas, thereby increasing the risk of flooding. So, I was reading another article about the levees in the U.S. These are earthen works that are built to keep water out of people fields, homes, and keep chemicals from seeping out. There is no standard for building these and some in the U.S. have been around for a hundred years. There are over 30,000 miles of levees and 80% of them are "not accredited," meaning the people and property behind them are in a high risk area for flooding. The areas behind the levees might as well not even have one there, at least that is the stance of FEMA. (I totally agree with this opinion) Because of the rating of those areas the houses behind the levees need to be built to withstand floods and also have to have flood insurance, which of course, drives the price up. So, typical of our crappy congress, a bunch of the idiots got together and whined to FEMA saying, "you're hurting the economy of certain areas." "You're making it difficult for people to build houses, and your devaluing potential property." How much you want to bet these idiots have some developer funding their stupid campaign? Serioulsy, you idiots?! Are you going to be the ones voting for the bailout of the home owners when their houses flood because FEMA told them it was a risky area in the first place? So now, FEMA has to look into different scenarios in relation to flooding. Wasting tax payer dollars to look into something better left alone. HELLLLOOO!!! Floods are going to continue to get worse, and bigger, why in the HELL would you make it EASIER to build a house in a flood prone area? And on top of that, how much does it cost the federal govenrment(aka US) to send out federal troops to increase the size of levees, fill sand bags, and help with recovery once a flood has done its damage? Wouldn't it just be cheaper to keep the regulations in place and disuade people to live in flood prone areas? Oh, wait, my bad, I forgot who I was talking about. Congress likes to waste my money and are more worried about the developers that are giving them kickbacks, lining their pockets.

Vote for me!

A friend and I were talking last night about how powerless we feel when it comes to election time. It seems that no matter what the people that we have to chose from for president aren't worth voting for. None of them. at all. We have to pick the best from the worst. Make sense? She said she had read that after the caucus' in Iowa, or New Hampshire 47% of the people leaving wished there had been someone better to pick from. Yeah, me too. Everyone is touting Mitt Romney and his values, and Jon Huntsman and his values, but I hate to say it, both of them are nothing more than wishy washy politicians! ALL the people we have to pick from are nothing more than wishy washy politicians. You can't trust a thing that any of them say. at all. nothing. sad, ain't it, that this is what our nation has come to. I just want a person that will be honest! and have some values. I'm not even going to say Christian values, I just want someone values period! They can be atheist, Jewish, whatever, I just want someone that doesn't have an agenda and has the best intentions for this nation. So I got to thinking, what if I were to run for President? hmmmm, what would my platform be? I honestly think we need a woman in the oval office, they take a lot less crap from everyone and are more likely to stick to their guns. But that is besides my point. So, my platform:
I'll go through the non-environmental stuff first, cause I know I'll be going on forever about that.

Education: get rid of "No Child Left Behind." What a waste of money. Outlaw standardized testing. Create a committee for education improvement that is made up of nothing but teachers. Real teachers, ones that are teaching right now, maybe 1 or 2 administrators to get their input, but we really need to know what the teachers are dealing with, and how to fix the real issues. Find a way to pay them more. Teachers are our kids future and they get the shaft! They need more money to deal with what they do.

Military: Keep them home, if at all possible. Pay them more, create a better support group.

Foreign Policy: Can't we all just get along? I think it's about mutual respect. For this I would need a strong VP who dealt with foreign policy. I really have no experience with that, but I know there has got to be a better way to do things than the way we are doing them right now.

Taxes: First order of business would be a massive audit! How the heck is the money being spent that we already have? Find out where we are hemorrhaging money and clamp it shut. Stop paying contractors that are gouging the government. I'm not going to say no new taxes, since we have a huge deficit and programs that need funded. If it can be done, then great, no new taxes, but if not, the money has to come from somewhere. Hopefully it could be done by cutting funding for worthless endeavors.

Welfare: No more money for any more kids. Make the system work so that people can get off welfare. Sliding scale type of thing. They find a better job, they get less welfare, don't completely pull the rug out from under them. I think part of the problem is that we have an inaccurate accounting of what it takes to live in the US. We need a reassessment of the cost of living and help people with those guidelines in mind. As for kids, they have more kids, they don't get anymore money! Limit the income to 2 kids, that's it, no more. If they have more kids, they need to find a way to pay for them, the government will refuse to.

Abortion: Personal feelings aside ( I think it's morally wrong), this is not a decision I can make for someone else. It's not for me to decide or to judge. I think everyone is entitled to the best medical care possible, and if that means an abortion, then, well, they should have that care. Do we really want women to return to back alleys for this type of care? As I said, I don't agree with it, there are thousands of families in the US that are waiting for a child through adoption for one reason or another and if there were less abortions I think those people would have those kids. But, as I said, that's not my decision to make. That decision is between that woman, her doctor, and her god.

Now onto the Environment!! Grrr! Climate change is occurring, we need to do more to stop it. Gasoline engines need to be more efficient. I'm not sure how Ford can sell cars in Europe that get WAAYYYY better gas mileage than the same cars they sell here, but they need to bring that technology home. So does VW, Jaguar, Toyota, and any of the others. All these companies have cars they sell in the EU, that get better gas mileage. Wonder why that is? Taxes on gas, or get rid of some of the subsidies. Maybe then people would stop using their gas hog SUV's and go for something that isn't as polluting. Work with the EPA. I really don't care what people think, the EPA doesn't have enough power! What they do have, is sometimes misused, and needs to be checked, but that happens in any organization, especially governmental. I'm not saying they should have more, but when they make regulations for air emissions, Congress shouldn't be able to squash them with a rider on an appropriations bill. There needs to be  more work on restoration of wetlands, and other natural areas. We need to stop the sedimentation that is destroying all our coastal wetlands. We need to work with farmers to improve their conservation plans and activities. I'd stop granting new oil drilling permits in the gulf, and in Alaska off the coast. (That alone would guarantee I would never be pres.) I'd push research for new alternative fuels. NOT ETHANOL! We won't even get into how bad ethanol is for the environment on an ecology stand point. It's wonderful on an emissions front, but the growing and production of it is soooo bad for conservation. Push for water conservation, there are way better ways to do things in relation to water than what we are dong now. Someone needs to listen to the scientists!! They have been telling us a lot for a long time and we continue on like we are deaf. Business as usual isn't going to cut it.

One more thing: I would refuse to sign into law any bill that would be submitted that had a rider on it. If that meant government shut down, so be it. The Congress has got to stop looking out for their own interests and start looking to the interests of the people. Quit with their own pay raises, and anything else that is to their advantage. They are there to do a job, and at the moment they are sucking at it. oh, yeah, and I'd get rid of lobbyists.

So, would you vote for me? lol, I thought so.

Presidential Elections

I've read several accounts that say all the Republican candidates question the science behind global warming and they are critical of any of the measures to slow carbin emissions.  What planet are these idiots from?! HELLLLOOOOOO (think Mushu, from Mulan :) Can these guys not see what is happening around them? Do they not read the news? The weather reports? For one, lets clear something up, it's NOT Global warming.... it's CLIMATE CHANGE  (stupid Al Gore). Yes, the temperature of the earth will increase, however, that's not the real problem. Yes, the earth has gone through heating and cooling cycles in the past, but that's not the problem! It's the change in events in different areas. Hurricanes will become stronger, if not more frequent, droughts will become worse, areas with rain will get more rain, areas without, will get less. Does that make sense? And the real problem behind the drastic change in weather events is that there are now lots & lots of people in those areas where the weather is going to change. You thought Las Vegas was dry before, ha, just wait. You thought the coast was a great place to live, you could deal with a random hurricane, ha, just wait. That doesn't even include the amount of sea level rise that will be happening within the next 50 years.  Even insurance companies have started looking at climate change and the amount of money it will cost them to insure houses in certain areas. hmmm, insurance companies that only care about money and like to bet on a sure thing, are looking into climate change. And guess what, this is all caused by an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Methane is also a problem in the atmosphere as a green house gas, and could become a bigger problem, but at the moment, it's closer to the bottom of the list as an issue. So, I guess my question is why are all the cadidates burying their heads in the sand? Why do they seem to think that by ignoring or questioning the science that this issue will go away. Or maybe they think if the ignore it, it doesn't exist?! Scientific data is mounting that the problem is not going away and the problem is caused by increased greenhouse gas emissions. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother. I hate it when people don't listen. One of the many reasons I stopped teaching, but that's a tangent I don't need to take. How can people deny the mounting scientific evidence of what is going on around us? And why would they? I really don't even want to think about who I would have to choose from as a president. All the candidates at the moment suck, and I'm including Obama in that statement. Someone needs to step up, get a set of cajones, and quit being so damn wishy-washy. hmm, I guess that means we need  a woman in office.

If you don't have the money, you shouldn't buy it!

Okay, so I'm going to complain about California.  It's a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there. Way tooooo many people! Everywhere. Doesn't matter where you go, you have traffic jams, or just lots of people. ugh. anyway. Not to mention the fact that the weather and location make is a serious draw on water resources in the western US. But that is a rant for another day. Today I want to complain about the Cali government that seems to think wasting money on a high speed rail system is a good thing. Hellllllloooooooo!! They can't even pay their teachers, or their public employees, and they are talking about constructing a multi-billion dollar high speed rail system! Get your damn priorities in order! I understand that the rail system is an attempt to decrease the green house gas emissions, but there has got to be a cheaper way to do that. In order to pay the teachers and other public employees the government has proposed new sales and income taxes to be voted on in the next election. Wow, really? Why don't you try converting buses, and public vehicles to electricity, or liquid propane, or compressed natural gas. Or put solar panels on your parking lots & office buildings? Or put gardens on the roofs of your office buildings? There area millions of other, CHEAPER, ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions other than taxing the people some more. I don't even live there and it makes me mad! Someone needs to knock some sense into people! Good grief.

Changing management styles

My sister says I need an editor :) I guess she thinks that my rants and raves are disjointed and hard to follow. This coming from a lawyer. So I'll try to be more concise, although I'm sure it really doesn't matter too much, as I don't think many people read this.
So, onto today's rant.
I'm sure many have heard about the flooding this past year along the Mississippi & Missouri River valleys. Most are willing to blame the Army Corps of Engineers, I mean, they ARE the ones that originally put in the dams and they are the ones that decided when and how much water would be released when the flooding got to certain levels. So, I guess they are good enough to blame. Once the vast amount of water was released upstream, dikes and levees downstream were overrun, and some even broken by the excess water that came spilling down the river. And now the damage will cost over $2 Billion to fix. ouch.
With the building of dams & levees as flood control, developers have come in and built millions of homes on floodplains. With that development has come the destruction of MILLIONS of acres of wetlands. Over 50% of the wetlands that were originally found in the US have been destroyed. In some areas in the Midwest, almost all wetlands have been destroyed. And in case you didn't know, wetlands have many functions: sponge, filter, nursery, climate control, among others. So, people have bought the houses that have been built on the flood plains. Ummm, hmmm, that really doesn't seem very smart to me. Some may think my next sentiment harsh, but it's how I fell. If you build your house on a floodplain, don't come crying for money when it gets flooded. Are you stupid?! Of course it's going to flood, you built it right in the middle of a FLOODPLAIN!!! What the hell do you think that means? So, I feel sorry for those that have had their houses flooded or swept away by the floods, but, COME ON, what the hell did you expect?! If you can see the river from your deck and you aren't 35 feet above it, guess what, chances are, one of these days your house will be under water.
Has anyone ever been to the Grand Canyon? yeah, just SEEEEEE the power of the water out there! That is what water can do. You can't control water, at least not permanently, it will let you think you can control it, but you're seriously mistaken if you think you can. So all those levees and dikes and dams that have been used to try and control the water that is flowing down stream, they are really just a band-aid. In the long term, they won't do much good.
So, back to the ACOE and the $2 billion damage after the summer flooding. And tying it into the function of wetlands. Areas that still have large amounts of wetlands have better flood control. Ground that hasn't been drained for agriculture or homes is more likely to absorb more water. If there are fields or pavement, the water runs off. If more water runs off, it means more water in the rivers, which means more flooding is likely. Another benefit of wetlands is that it is a carbon sink. This means the plants that are found there absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. And when wetlands are destroyed greenhouse gases, which includes methane, are released into the air. So, not only is the function of the wetlands reduced, what they did hold is released. So the destruction multiplies the problem.
In 2007 the Council for Environmental Quality was tasked with rewriting the guidelines for flood control carried out by the ACOE. The original guidelines were drawn up in 1983 and flood control at that time was all about the money. Money from agriculture from drained wetlands and money from water, trapped behind a dam,  that was sold to cities for people living on the floodplains. With the current climate change problem and the increase in flooding and droughts the guidelines need a serious overhaul.  The original draft of the updated guidelines in 2007 was rejected by the National Academy of Science and it was sent back to the drawing board in 2009. The new updated guidelines are to include climate change and environmental impacts along with financial gain when determining the validity of a project. The new guidelines would include creating or restoring wetlands, and other nonstructural methods of flood control.  So, there are still no updated guidelines, and Congress is at it again. grrrrr. Those idiots have attached a paragraph to the omnibus legislation limiting the use of funds for "new start" programs. And since the new guidelines would be considered a "new start" no funding will be used to create wetlands along the river, it will just be used to fund the fixing of the dikes, dams and levees. that were destroyed this year. in the flood. Okay, so let me get this straight. The dams, dikes & levees didn't work in controlling the flood and were in fact destroyed by said flood....... and we know that the number of floods will increase due to climate change....... annnnnndddddd we want to rebuild the same structures that didn't work the first time? I remember hearing somewhere that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result!
One of the senators actually stated that the use of funds for habitat restoration would be a mismanagement of funds. He's from Missouri, so I'm sure he's upset that his summer home got flooded. But COME ON!!! Obviously what we have been doing ISN'T working!! Why would someone put the brakes on something that would work better? Oh, wait, let me guess, his campaign money comes from the developers that put their developments in the flood plain or from the agriculture coop that wants the land for corn.
Can we PLEASE have a Congress that doesn't have a hidden agenda?! I'd love to have a Congress that has the best interest of this country at heart, not the best interest of their damn pockets!